Is Labeling Evolution as Just a Theory in Textbooks a Reasonable Approach?

[hokie1]

Or the lack of fish prove that limestone deposits are not marine.

The rocks are full of fossils, just not fish fossils. Bryozoans, ammonites, corals, crinoids, brachiopods, and trilobites to name some. No fish. No birds. No mammals.

Marine refers to oceans and seas, i.e. saltwater.

 

[vivesdn]

"These are undisputed scientific facts. We can Observe, Experiment, Hypothesize, and Repeat the experiment.
These are Scientific facts; whereas with evolution, we cannot even attempt to repeat the processes about which many people have theorized.
"

Take a bacteral strain. Put it on a media with low nutrients, but with some potential nutrient: something that this strain is known to not to grow with. Culture it fore some generations and you'll see colonies growing on the 'new' nutrient. You can repeat the experiment twice, tenths, thousands of times. You'll get the same qualitative result: new strains growing on new nutient. What can be diferent are mutations and number of colonies.

"Not a single of these facts are proved."
I am puzzled by this comment...
Call it lexical abuse. You could read 'explanations to these facts'.

 

[junglebeast]

Anything that reproduces according to a blueprint and has a small chance of translation error in the blueprint will experience evolution under a selective force.

It's a statistical fact that this will occur under tolerable circumstances such as the amount of redundancy in the blueprint, the type of translation error, the probability of translation error, the size of population, the gravity of selective force, etc.

This is evolution, and it is NOT a theory...because it is not based on observational evidence. Although the initial idea was based on observational evidence by Alfred Wallace, it can now be proven mathematically without regard to any observations. Thus, it is a fact, not a theory. It is extremely easy to create circumstances in which evolution will occur, and evolution is used in solving many everyday problems using computers.

What is a theory is the idea that the conditions have been amenable to evolution on Earth, and that it is responsible for the development of all organisms on the planet...but arguing that evolution itself is not a hard fact is simply false. However, the observation of DNA, and observation of evolution in progress, the fossil record, the observation of transcription and translation of DNA/RNA, and many other things provide an overwhelming amount of observational evidence that this theory is correct.

 

[BoomBoom]

But there is still not a shred of sound evidence and people that believe in evolution are ultimately believing by faith for it is unprovable.

The mountain of evidence that supports the theory of evolution is undeniable.

Your statement and premise is utterly false.


Just look at the things that have evolved out of the slime...like trolls.

 

[JaredJames]

As with all debates like this, the religious people attack evolution, when in reality their problem is / what they are actually attacking is how life began. I find that a lot of times they have trouble distinguishing between the two.

Evolution has been proven. How life began hasn't, these are just hypothesis. The most believable of these is clearly "god put us here, we just appeared 6000 years ago" argument, don't you think?

The arguments then become mangled with false analogies and claims which are very convincing to those without any scientific understanding/those easily brainwashed without question. The evidence for evolution is undeniable, but when someone doesn't understand it, they are open to these ridiculous arguments.

I'm surprised you are allowing this thread to continue so long, especially given the claims being made which are clearly false.

 

[baywax]

"God" is a hypothesis based on an ignorance of nature and the ignorance of the study of nature (science).

Evolution is a theory that has been proven in labs and in nature... as well as by the study of nature (science).

Betwixt the two shall never meet.

The "intelligent design" crowd is forgetting one thing. Intelligence is a human trait, bourn out of our instinct to survive. Recognizing intelligence in nature is akin to seeing faces in clouds... or bearded guys with lightning bolts in the clouds... many of us are projecting our own image and our own mode of thinking onto nature. Its a form of narcissism. We have to attach significance to nature by seeing ourselves in it. Everything has to revolve around our existence... in our opinion. The idea that nature is something that was invented to support humans is another example of our narcissism and ego-centric behaviour... which are again a manifestation of the instinct to survive.

The configurations we find in nature are a result of a long, long series of trial and error... 13.5 billion years of evolution... that's why they appear so well put together, almost "intelligent". But, that is our interpretation of nature. How could we be wrong? All I can tell you is, we've been wrong many times before. And we are wrong to imagine any kind of "intelligence" exists in the processes and machinations of natural selection.

 

[arunma]

But there is still not a shred of sound evidence and people that believe in evolution are ultimately believing by faith for it is unprovable.

Gnahtte, this isn't a matter of faith, nor do scientists "believe in" evolution. Rather than taking anything on faith, scientists have observed many things in nature, and constructed the model of evolution on that basis. Evolution is provable in the same way that other theories in science are provable.

I assume that rather than evolution, you believe in some form of creationism (please correct me if I'm wrong). There are varying degrees of credibility among those in the creationist community, and a few people are even respectable. But I've heard a lot of ridiculous and unsubstantiated arguments from this community. Jared has correctly pointed out that people who don't have formal scientific education are unfortunately more susceptible to these ridiculous arguments. Usually creationists attack evolution by poking holes in the theory or by providing possible but implausible alternatives (e.g. universe created with the appearance of age). Ultimately, they don't provide any alternative models that are testable in any way. An example of this is the starlight problem. Young Earth creationists often propose that light from distant stars was created en route to Earth to give the universe an appearance of age. Now technically, this is a possibility. But in proposing this alternative, the creationists are indirectly admitting that the laws of nature seem to be contradictory to the creationist model, and that the only solution to this problem is to assume that the laws were broken in just the right way such that the creationist model will work. You might take the creationist model on faith. But as far as science goes it's a cop out.

Now, I'm certainly not trying to attack any religious belief, here. I myself believe in a creator God. At the same time, I recognize that there is substantial legitimate evidence that favors the evolutionary model. So I have to ask: can you provide an alternative explanation to the biological development of life on Earth that could be tested by some sort of experiment? If any testable altenatives to evolution existed, then I think most scientists would be open to testing them. I haven't seen any legitimate alternatives yet.

 

[JaredJames]

I don't believe in any form of a god, I can't, there just isn't any evidence. I find there are two types of creationist, the type who simply ignore all evidence and simply go with what they believe no matter how ridiculous, and then there's the type which accepts science, but (and it's a big but), they then take out the science bit and substitute god (as in the starlight example above). They cut away the truth of the matter and simply say 'god did it' whether because he could or because he wanted to fool us and create an illusion of age (like with carbon dating when they claim 'god skews the results to throw us off', and then they expect you to believe it. Unfortunately people do. And when asked why god does it, the answer is always 'it's a test of faith'. Now to me, I would rather live this life (the only life we have), the way I want and enjoy it, than spend my life believing and worshipping in some all powerful god who, given the lack of evidence, probably doesn't exist.

Until you can put incontrovertible proof in front of me that there is a god, I just can't accept it. Don't get me wrong, what everyone else wants to believe is up to them.

 

[ideasrule]

When I see physicists argue over the merits of string theory or biologists debate the causes of extinction events, I feel thrilled. Those are examples of new hypotheses being tested and challenged, of science improving itself, and of intelligent people contributing to the collective knowledge of mankind.

I am enraged, however, when I see creationists exploiting the scientific illiteracy of the general public to declare well-established science a joke or a fraud. If they are so smart, where are their Nobel prizes? Where are their revolutionary discoveries and groundbreaking research papers? When creationists claim Earth is a few thousand years old and force scientists to debunk their nonsense, the resulting argument is not an intellectual debate; it's a farce. It's an epitome of stupidity and an insult on intellectuals in almost every field: anthropology, astronomy, cosmology, biology, genetics, history, linguistics, physics, geology, and even chemistry. Such stupidity does nothing but slow the progress of humanity, brainwash the ignorant into believing lies, and threaten to throw the world into a primitive dark age. Creationism is nothing but a despicable, dishonest, and dangerous delusion.

 

[ideasrule]

What I find interesting is that religious people often criticize science for constantly proving itself wrong, and contrast this with the stability of religious dogma.

Science updates its theories and creates new hypotheses in response to new evidence. It improves, becoming more and more accurate in explaining the natural world. In doing so, it opens the door to better technology, more effective medical treatments, and more fulfilling lives. This process of continuous self-improvement is called "progress".

Most religions, on the other hand, have the immutability of their dogma as one of their central tenets. They declare a set of beliefs to be the absolute truth, and do not allow it to be challenged or corrected in response to new insights. This refusal to improve is called "stagnation", and it is an ideology that is rotten to the core.

 

[drankin]

I just watched the Ben Stein movie "Expelled". I found it interesting. Biased but interesting. Their are many accomplished highly esteemed intelligent scientists who question Darwinism. He makes the point that whether wrong or right, the questions should not be silenced. I tend to agree. Darwin titled his book "Origin of Species". But could not, of course, determine an origin of a species. Noone has. Putting together at least 250 particular proteins (how are proteins created in a sterile environment?) in a particular way in a particular order in perfect conditins to create a living cell and then then that cell being able to survice and replicate, deviate, evolve...

This is why ID looks like a viable theory. There are just too many questions that aren't allowed to be asked. This is the question that doesn't have a satisfactory answer.

 

[WaveJumper]

I just watched the Ben Stein movie "Expelled". I found it interesting. Biased but interesting. Their are many accomplished highly esteemed intelligent scientists who question Darwinism. He makes the point that whether wrong or right, the questions should not be silenced. I tend to agree. Darwin titled his book "Origin of Species". But could not, of course, determine an origin of a species. Noone has. Putting together at least 250 particular proteins (how are proteins created in a sterile environment?) in a particular way in a particular order in perfect conditins to create a living cell and then then that cell being able to survice and replicate, deviate, evolve...

This is why ID looks like a viable theory. There are just too many questions that aren't allowed to be asked. This is the question that doesn't have a satisfactory answer.

Evolution is observed and is already fact. Abiogenesis is not. Evolution doesn't mean life came about naturally, it only hints so. Nobody knows why molecules group together in certain patterns(cells) that become alive(you might say it looks kind of supernatural).

Evolution doesn't preclude a creator.

 

[arunma]

I fully agree that the debate over creationism is an absolute farce. At the same time, we need to be careful how we communicate legitimate science to the general public. There are people out there who use science as a sort of atheist religion, and go on endless diatribes about how science has freed us from the primative bond of belief in the supernatural. I won't bother to discuss the legitimacy of this line of reasoning (I think the last thing we all want is a science vs. religion debate, whether on this thread or in public policy). I will, however, say that misusing science for this purpose detracts from the issues of evolution, big bang cosmology, and any other areas of science that concern the origin of the universe as we know it. A common creationist charge is that evolutionary biology is the enemy of faith and thus ought to be eliminated. When we, as scientists, take the role that the creationists have set up for us, we're defeating our own cause. Going on tangents about how only stupid people believe in God is not going to convince many people to give the evidence for evolution a fair hearing.

There's also the issue of the ridiculous arguments that creationists cite in favor of their models and against evolution/cosmology. We all know these arguments, because they've been around for upwards of thirty years: inaccurately carbon-dated mollusks, the statistical improbability of evolution, dust on the moon, the Earth's magnetic field, the second law of thermodynamics, the lack of transitional forms, etc. All of these arguments have been refuted by legitimate scientific research, so why do creationist organizations still cite them? Rather than writing angry emails to these organizations and getting the same form letter, maybe it's a better idea to engage people more directly. We have such a person right here on this forum, and it might be helpful to go through the evidence for evolution with him, as well as his creationist models (if he has any).

While I don't know that creationist organizations actually practice brainwashing or have the capacity to throw the world into a dark age, they do employ dishonest methods of argument, and their activities could cause America to fall behind the rest of the world scientifically (hmm...that might explain the demographic in my physics department). Employing the same appeals to emotion and fear tactics as them isn't going to work. Yes, creationism is without any merit whatsoever. I think the best response is a calm but frank explanation as to why it has no scientific legitimacy. And that explanation shouldn't devolve into fruitless debates that pit science and religion against each other.

 

[ideasrule]

I just watched the Ben Stein movie "Expelled". I found it interesting. Biased but interesting. Their are many accomplished highly esteemed intelligent scientists who question Darwinism. He makes the point that whether wrong or right, the questions should not be silenced. I tend to agree. Darwin titled his book "Origin of Species". But could not, of course, determine an origin of a species. Noone has. Putting together at least 250 particular proteins (how are proteins created in a sterile environment?) in a particular way in a particular order in perfect conditins to create a living cell and then then that cell being able to survice and replicate, deviate, evolve...

You do know the difference between speciation and abiogenesis, right? Wait, let me rephrase that...you DON'T know the difference between speciation and abiogenesis, right?

You might be interested to know that Expelled scored 10% on Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/). It's filled with academic dishonesty and ignorant speculation.

 

[arunma]

This is why ID looks like a viable theory. There are just too many questions that aren't allowed to be asked. This is the question that doesn't have a satisfactory answer.

My department (the Iowa State physics department) was recently at the center of an ID controversy, so I've been thinking about this recently. I'm certainly against censorship, even censorship of ID. The way I see it, meritorious research will get funding, and bad research won't. Certainly we should ask questions, but ultimately we need to arrive at answers. I think the problem with ID is hinted at within your own statement: ID asks questions about the origins of life and pokes a few holes in evolutionary theory, but it provides no testable alternative whatsoever. What testable predictions does ID make? What experiment could we perform to test for intelligent design? I already believe that the universe is designed by an intelligence (in fact I believe in the creation account found in the Bible), so I certainly have no personal biases against ID. But without testable hypotheses, ID isn't very useful.

Creationism can't simply cast doubt on evolution. Using the same creationist logic, one could cast doubt on gravity and invent their own explanation as to why objects fall. The creationists have to come up with a model that can actually be tested for validity.

 

[JaredJames]

My department (the Iowa State physics department) was recently at the center of an ID controversy, so I've been thinking about this recently. I'm certainly against censorship, even censorship of ID. The way I see it, meritorious research will get funding, and bad research won't. Certainly we should ask questions, but ultimately we need to arrive at answers. I think the problem with ID is hinted at within your own statement: ID asks questions about the origins of life and pokes a few holes in evolutionary theory, but it provides no testable alternative whatsoever. What testable predictions does ID make? What experiment could we perform to test for intelligent design? I already believe that the universe is designed by an intelligence (in fact I believe in the creation account found in the Bible), so I certainly have no personal biases against ID. But without testable hypotheses, ID isn't very useful.

Creationism can't simply cast doubt on evolution. Using the same creationist logic, one could cast doubt on gravity and invent their own explanation as to why objects fall. The creationists have to come up with a model that can actually be tested for validity.

The biggest problem I have with all religions is that they work on the basis of 'we don't understand it so it was god' and 'if science can't explain it now it never will'. I firmly believe that at some point in the future, science will come up with the answers, or at least a sound theory with evidence as to the creation of the universe, how life began etc.
I have seen countless debates where a 'respectable' scientist says "it must be god as we can't find any way how it could happen naturally". Now to me that is simply giving up. Just because you can't find the answer doesn't mean someone never will. It is this problem with religions, where they do not allow questioning of 'their facts', that they put to people without any evidence. And years ago, killing anyone who questioned them. We already know religions like christianity are based heavily on older religions, so how do we know what truth, if any, there is to a book such as the bible?

No Evidence, No Belief - That is my view of any matter scientific, religious or other.

 

[drankin]

You do know the difference between speciation and abiogenesis, right? Wait, let me rephrase that...you DON'T know the difference between speciation and abiogenesis, right?

You might be interested to know that Expelled scored 10% on Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/). It's filled with academic dishonesty and ignorant speculation.

No, I don't know crap about biology. And I've enjoyed many movies that the critics didn't. I don't really care about that. You should watch it and judge for yourself if you really care at all.

I care about allowing the questions to be asked. I believe Evolution to be good science and that ID is not a science at all. It's not allowed. But the questions (to me the really interesting questions) are avoided because of the religious connotation. The only science that could (maybe) be made of ID might be identifying those things that cannot be logically explained otherwise or that show that the only way biological structures could be particularly arranged is by design, which requires an intelligence.

 

[arunma]

The biggest problem I have with all religions is that they work on the basis of 'we don't understand it so it was god' and 'if science can't explain it now it never will'. I firmly believe that at some point in the future, science will come up with the answers, or at least a sound theory with evidence as to the creation of the universe, how life began etc.
I have seen countless debates where a 'respectable' scientist says "it must be god as we can't find any way how it could happen naturally". Now to me that is simply giving up. Just because you can't find the answer doesn't mean someone never will. It is this problem with religions, where they do not allow questioning of 'their facts', that they put to people without any evidence. And years ago, killing anyone who questioned them.

You seem to be operating under the premise that religions exist for the purpose of explaining natural phenomena. I can't speak for others, but my reasons for theism have nothing to do with any desire to know how the world works. If your reasons for rejecting the existence of any god is borne out of your assumption that science is capable of answering questions about our origins (which isn't a bad assumption), then you might want to reexamine that. Example: notice how the modern theory of electrodynamics doesn't stop most theists from saying that God makes lightning. And I went through the same Jackson-based E&M torture as most others here, so I don't think the problem is a lack of understanding on my part.

But hey, as you said, what you choose to believe is up to you. I hope no one interprets my above comments as an invitation to some sort of a religious debate. The issue here is the evidence for evolution, not the legitimacy of theism.

We already know religions like christianity are based heavily on older religions, so how do we know what truth, if any, there is to a book such as the bible?

Be careful that you don't indulge creationist-like academic dishonesty when it happens to support a position that you approve of. I've read literature on the supposed connections of Christianity to older religions, and unlike most people I've gone back to read the primary sources. These arguments are academically-poor at best. Much like the creationists, there are others who use already-refuted arguments to make claims about connections of Christianity to other religions.

 

[arunma]

No, I don't know crap about biology. And I've enjoyed many movies that the critics didn't. I don't really care about that. You should watch it and judge for yourself if you really care at all.

I care about allowing the questions to be asked. I believe Evolution to be good science and that ID is not a science at all. It's not allowed. But the questions (to me the really interesting questions) are avoided because of the religious connotation. The only science that could (maybe) be made of ID might be identifying those things that cannot be logically explained otherwise or that show that the only way biological structures could be particularly arranged is by design, which requires an intelligence.

I haven't seen "Expelled!" yet. Could you give me an example of a question that's being avoided in science? Also, do you happen to know of any testable predictions that ID proposes?

 

[drankin]

I haven't seen "Expelled!" yet. Could you give me an example of a question that's being avoided in science? Also, do you happen to know of any testable predictions that ID proposes?

Was life created by an intelligent designer?

No, I don't know of any testable predictions that ID proposes. That's why I don't think it is a valid science... as I stated.

 

[baywax]

I just watched the Ben Stein movie "Expelled". I found it interesting. Biased but interesting. Their are many accomplished highly esteemed intelligent scientists who question Darwinism. He makes the point that whether wrong or right, the questions should not be silenced. I tend to agree. Darwin titled his book "Origin of Species". But could not, of course, determine an origin of a species. Noone has. Putting together at least 250 particular proteins (how are proteins created in a sterile environment?) in a particular way in a particular order in perfect conditins to create a living cell and then then that cell being able to survice and replicate, deviate, evolve...

This is why ID looks like a viable theory. There are just too many questions that aren't allowed to be asked. This is the question that doesn't have a satisfactory answer.

Just because there are, as you say, "too many questions" does not mean we jump to some imaginary answer like "intelligent design" or a "designer of the universe(s)".

There are two reasons intelligent design does not qualify as an answer to the questions concerning panspermia and abiogenisis...

1. "Design" is a subjective designation that is arrived at through the bias/fallacy of an observer. In this instance, "intelligence" resides in the observer, not in what they're observing.

2. intelligent design implies pre-meditated composition/arrangement of matter with "purpose" in mind. Yet there is no proof of a "brain (mind) in space" with a purpose. There is, however, proof that, over the last 13.5 billion years of nature's evolution, certain patterns and laws have emerged as the "surviving", most efficient modes of the behaviour of energy/matter.

The laws of nature that have survived the primal beginnings of this universe are the perfect examples of the "survival of the fittest" laws. They seem unfathomably well designed, efficient and grand because of the eons of trial and error that have gone into shaping these wonders of nature. And they continue to evolve, as we speak.

 

[ideasrule]

arunma: You seem to think that I'm a scientist ("When we, as scientists..."). That's not true; I'm simply a science enthusiast who trusts objective evidence over unfounded speculation. If I damaged the reputation of the scientists here, I apologize; the opinions I express here are my own, and should not be considered those of the scientific community.

That said, I see that I have to clarify what I meant by "brainwashing" and "throwing the world into a dark age". Instilling a belief in a person using dishonesty by excluding evidence to the contrary IS brainwashing. It's not a pretty word, but it is very accurate in this case. As for the possibility of a dark age, the stats regarding Americans' scientific beliefs are worrying, to say the least, and they hardly bode well for the future. As a Canadian, I'm also deeply worried that a large percentage of high-school students here consider evolution and Big Bang to be silly beliefs, and not accurate models of the universe. That is hardly an encouraging sign.

I'm surprised that you think my posts contained fear tactics. Portraying creationism as harmful is hardly a "fear tactic"; using that logic, saying that anything holds back progress would also be a "fear tactic". And "emotional appeals"? If my support of objectivity appeals to your emotions, that's great, but it was intended solely as a logical argument.

 

[drankin]

Just because there are, as you say, "too many questions" does not mean we jump to some imaginary answer like "intelligent design" or a "designer of the universe(s)".

There are two reasons intelligent design does not qualify as an answer to the questions concerning panspermia and abiogenisis...

1. "Design" is a subjective designation that is arrived at through the bias/fallacy of an observer. In this instance, "intelligence" resides in the observer, not in what they're observing.

2. intelligent design implies pre-meditated composition/arrangement of matter with "purpose" in mind. Yet there is no proof of a "brain (mind) in space" with a purpose. There is, however, proof that, over the last 13.5 billion years of nature's evolution, certain patterns and laws have emerged as the "surviving", most efficient modes of the behaviour of energy/matter.

The laws of nature that have survived the primal beginnings of this universe are the perfect examples of the "survival of the fittest" laws. They seem unfathomably well designed, efficient and grand because of the eons of trial and error that have gone into shaping these wonders of nature. And they continue to evolve, as we speak.

1. This doesn't disqualify the question. Because if life was indeed designed an intelligence would have been required.

2. The proof to a purpose is the fact that life actually does "survive". What caused nonliving matter to arrange itself to become living organisms? And why would those living organisms try to survive? To me it suggests purpose. There is no logical mechanism that propels this activity.

 

[hokie1]

I just watched the Ben Stein movie "Expelled".

Drankin please take what was said in Expelled with a grain of salt. Here are a few of the incorrect notions in the movie:

1. The scene in the lecture hall was staged with extras, not students
2. The people that were 'fired' from the Smithsonian were never employees
3. The prof who went to Ames stopped publishing and you probably know that is bad if you want to be in an academic environment.
4. The claim that Darwin can never be questioned is rubbish - drop in on a conferrence and see the extent
5. The film's claim that Darwinism leads to all sorts of evils is again rubbish

Learning fromthis movie is like tryingto learn history from an Oliver Stone film - not happening.

 

[JaredJames]

You seem to be operating under the premise that religions exist for the purpose of explaining natural phenomena. I can't speak for others, but my reasons for theism have nothing to do with any desire to know how the world works.

I meant it with regards to creationism and why people believe in it, the purpose of which is to explain the creation of the universe, a natural phenomena if I've ever known one. Why you believe in any religious beliefs is totally your choice, however, why people choose to believe creationism with no evidence to back it up and disregard all of science with all its evidence is a true mystery to me.

If your reasons for rejecting the existence of any god is borne out of your assumption that science is capable of answering questions about our origins (which isn't a bad assumption), then you might want to reexamine that.

Re-examine what? I would rather wait for science to come up with a plausible reason for something (for example, origin of life), than make an unsubstantiated claim regarding some all powerful being again, with NO EVIDENCE to prove it exists.

Example: notice how the modern theory of electrodynamics doesn't stop most theists from saying that God makes lightning. And I went through the same Jackson-based E&M torture as most others here, so I don't think the problem is a lack of understanding on my part.

If you have a theory and its ascociated evidence and then disregard it, a theory which I might add has been tested numerous times by many people to ensure accuracy of the results, to disregard it is being truly ignorant. You are choosing to ignore perfectly valid and plausible evidence in favour of something which you have no proof of, you tell me where the logic in that is?

But hey, as you said, what you choose to believe is up to you. I hope no one interprets my above comments as an invitation to some sort of a religious debate. The issue here is the evidence for evolution, not the legitimacy of theism.

I agree, don't construe any comments of my own as an attempt at a religious debate, but what I want to get an answer for is, why given all the evidence, people can simply ignore something like evolution, with no other plausible hypothesis to replace it other than "god did it".

Be careful that you don't indulge creationist-like academic dishonesty when it happens to support a position that you approve of.

An example please?

I've read literature on the supposed connections of Christianity to older religions, and unlike most people I've gone back to read the primary sources. These arguments are academically-poor at best. Much like the creationists, there are others who use already-refuted arguments to make claims about connections of Christianity to other religions.

They have shown various holdiays in christianity (christmas for example) to come from pagan festivals, in order to ease the implementation of a new religion by a new ruling power. Depending where you read in the bible christ was supposedly born on many dates, with different christian sects celebrating on different days. The 25th was simply chosen as it aligned with a holdiay the people already had (I'll look up an example now).

 

[JaredJames]

Here is a link to a Christian website, read the first few paragraphs and it explains exactly how christmas isn't a christian festival and was adopted from paganism:
http://www.loughbrickland.org/articles/mass-easter.shtml

You say people who make claims christianity is linked to other religions give "academically-poor" arguments, yet here is a site from the religion itself which disagrees with your claim. Why would the christians argue it as well? If these aspects are tuly christians as you imply by the above statement, it doesn't make sense for them to argue against thems does it? So I think you should re-think your claim of the arguments being academically poor.

 

[Hurkyl]

I bet I can find a scientific textbook that says that electrons orbit the nucleus of the atom like planets around a star. Will you promise to reject quantum mechanics if I do?

 

[JaredJames]

I bet I can find a scientific textbook that says that electrons orbit the nucleus of the atom like planets around a star. Will you promise to reject quantum mechanics if I do?

What? Would you like me to quote more references? I am yet to see one site which claims christmas on the 25th is purely a christian holiday.

And I'm pretty sure any secondary school textbook would make that electron claim. But before you reject anything you should look at all the evidence for it, if you must make a choice on believing in quantum mechanics, you should evaluate as much evidence for and against it as you can before doing so, and given evidence for religious claims is zero, I'd say it's good grounds to reject it.

I'm not asking anyone to reject anything, I'm simply pointing out that for arunma to say "I've read literature on the supposed connections of Christianity to older religions, and unlike most people I've gone back to read the primary sources. These arguments are academically-poor at best.", when a simple google pulls enough evidence to the contrary, is incorrect. Google 'when was jesus born' and the amount of articles regarding the inaccuracies of christian dating and celebrations, with none confirming the known 25th.

You can make all these claims and statements you want, but until someone can answer "how can you reject all evidence for evolution and substitute it with (in this case), god, with no evidence to back it up?", I can't see there's a valid argument for it.

 

[drankin]

Drankin please take what was said in Expelled with a grain of salt. Here are a few of the incorrect notions in the movie:

1. The scene in the lecture hall was staged with extras, not students
2. The people that were 'fired' from the Smithsonian were never employees
3. The prof who went to Ames stopped publishing and you probably know that is bad if you want to be in an academic environment.
4. The claim that Darwin can never be questioned is rubbish - drop in on a conferrence and see the extent
5. The film's claim that Darwinism leads to all sorts of evils is again rubbish

Learning fromthis movie is like tryingto learn history from an Oliver Stone film - not happening.

I understand the movie was extremely biased but it makes some intriguing points worthy of open debate.

 

[bassplayer142]

Nobody will question that 99% of animals that ever lived have gone extinct. We know this from fossils. So god just creates and destroys these animals until humans show up? Now since we are here to observe the process maybe he won't create anymore and all the animals will go extinct. Evolution has a ridiculous amount of evidence that point to its truth.

 

[baywax]

1. This doesn't disqualify the question. Because if life was indeed designed an intelligence would have been required.

"If" indeed... like I've already said, ID, (like "god"), are unproven hypotheses... its one big "if" with no substantial or even "intelligent" evidence being offered to prove it. Whereas natural selection (not only in life, but of the behaviours of energy and matter) has proven to hold many answers to how life and the rest of the universe got their start and are formed today.

2. The proof to a purpose is the fact that life actually does "survive". What caused nonliving matter to arrange itself to become living organisms? And why would those living organisms try to survive? To me it suggests purpose. There is no logical mechanism that propels this activity.

This is like asking what made energy form light or matter. These questions are being studied as we speak. If people don't have the patience to wait or the curiosity to study nature themselves to find out... they can always make up a source of intelligent design.

 

[NeoDevin]

I just watched the Ben Stein movie "Expelled".

I watched it too, after that we watched http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_Strippers" , I learned more from the second one.

I found it interesting. Biased but interesting.

I understand the movie was extremely biased but it makes some intriguing points worthy of open debate.

Biased is not quite the word I would use. "Incredibly misleading", "intentionally dishonest", "Lying pile of ****" are more accurate. See http://www.expelledexposed.com/" for more details.

Their are many accomplished highly esteemed intelligent scientists who question Darwinism.

The fact that you refer to evolution as "Darwinism" as if it were some sort of cult is very telling. Darwin was wrong about a great many of the details of the process, but he had the basic idea right. Since his time the theory has been tested, used to make (successful) predictions (like locations and time lines of fossils, which were later found), and modified to fit new evidence (genetics, gene transfer, and, more recently, epigenetics).

He makes the point that whether wrong or right,

No, he tries to claim that the theory of evolution has serious flaws... And the entire second half of the movie would make Godwin proud.

the questions should not be silenced. I tend to agree.

Intelligent design hasn't so much been expelled, as it has flunked out. There are many individuals (Discovery Institute for one) attempting to come up with some reasonable bit of science supporting their ID conclusion, they failed on the science part, so they switch to propaganda.

Darwin titled his book "Origin of Species". But could not, of course, determine an origin of a species. Noone has.

I don't know if this is ignorance, or just a lie on your part.

Putting together at least 250 particular proteins (how are proteins created in a sterile environment?) in a particular way in a particular order in perfect conditins to create a living cell and then then that cell being able to survice and replicate, deviate, evolve...

Yes, because that's the leading abiogenesis hypothesis... proteins just magically appeared and configured into a cell. Evolution is a mathematical fact for anything which reproduces with variation, if the variation affects the chances of further reproduction (assuming certain conditions on the rates of reproduction/variation). Which means that a cell is not required for evolution. A simple self replicating molecule will suffice. Such a molecule could eventually evolve into what we know as a cell. The cell is not the simplest form of self replicating system.

This is why ID looks like a viable theory.

You think you've found a flaw in the theory of evolution (which you haven't)... therefore "goddidit!" Brilliant! Why didn't I think of it. A negative argument for evolution is not an argument for ID. That would be like saying "Newton wasn't right about gravity... therefore fairies hold us down" (do you see the flaw in this logic?) There is not one single positive piece of evidence for ID.

There are just too many questions that aren't allowed to be asked. This is the question that doesn't have a satisfactory answer.

Please clarify exactly which questions aren't allowed to be asked, and which questions don't have a satisfactory answer?

Edited to add: Remember, Ben Stein is the man who said "Science leads to killing people".

 

[drankin]

"If" indeed... like I've already said, ID, (like "god"), are unproven hypotheses... its one big "if" with no substantial or even "intelligent" evidence being offered to prove it. Whereas natural selection (not only in life, but of the behaviours of energy and matter) has proven to hold many answers to how life and the rest of the universe got their start and are formed today.



This is like asking what made energy form light or matter. These questions are being studied as we speak. If people don't have the patience to wait or the curiosity to study nature themselves to find out... they can always make up a source of intelligent design.

Look, the question that is not proven or even explained is, "how did LIFE begin?". Evolution does not explain this. Evolution is a theory of how life, after the fact, mutates and developes into species. Evolution, suggests that over millions of years life on Earth as we know it, now exists. It's a good theory. It makes sense. But it doesn't answer the question we all want to know the answer to.

It cannot even touch on how life began. Show me the data on how this happened! Show me some good theory! Where is the science? This is an answer to a question that cannot even be asked without the baggage of religion. It's taboo. Is there funded research that even explores the question? If there is I would like to know. But I suspect that there is not any serious science focused on this because of the "religious" association. It's a question that is not allowed. What the hell?

 

[drankin]

I watched it too, after that we watched http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_Strippers" , I learned more from the second one.


Biased is not quite the word I would use. "Incredibly misleading", "intentionally dishonest", "Lying pile of ****" are more accurate. See http://www.expelledexposed.com/" for more details.

The fact that you refer to evolution as "Darwinism" as if it were some sort of cult is very telling. Darwin was wrong about a great many of the details of the process, but he had the basic idea right. Since his time the theory has been tested, used to make (successful) predictions (like locations and time lines of fossils, which were later found), and modified to fit new evidence (genetics, gene transfer, and, more recently, epigenetics).

No, he tries to claim that the theory of evolution has serious flaws... And the entire second half of the movie would make Godwin proud.

Intelligent design hasn't so much been expelled, as it has flunked out. There are many individuals (Discovery Institute for one) attempting to come up with some reasonable bit of science supporting their ID conclusion, they failed on the science part, so they switch to propaganda.

I don't know if this is ignorance, or just a lie on your part.

Yes, because that's the leading abiogenesis hypothesis... proteins just magically appeared and configured into a cell. Evolution is a mathematical fact for anything which reproduces with variation, if the variation affects the chances of further reproduction (assuming certain conditions on the rates of reproduction/variation). Which means that a cell is not required for evolution. A simple self replicating molecule will suffice. Such a molecule could eventually evolve into what we know as a cell. The cell is not the simplest form of self replicating system.

You think you've found a flaw in the theory of evolution (which you haven't)... therefore "goddidit!" Brilliant! Why didn't I think of it. A negative argument for evolution is not an argument for ID. That would be like saying "Newton wasn't right about gravity... therefore fairies hold us down" (do you see the flaw in this logic?) There is not one single positive piece of evidence for ID.

Please clarify exactly which questions aren't allowed to be asked, and which questions don't have a satisfactory answer?

Edited to add: Remember, Ben Stein is the man who said "Science leads to killing people".

Refering to your last question... my previous post.

NeoDevin, I'm not arguig for ID. I can't. I'm asking the question, "where did life begin?". I suspect that this is not a science that is even allowed to be seriously pursued.

Come on, give me something to chew on. Give me some data.

 

[NeoDevin]

Evolution does not explain [how life began].

Nor does it try to. Evolution only applies once there is reproduction with variation. That's sort of like claiming that neurology doesn't explain the formation of stars.

Evolution is a theory of how life, after the fact, mutates and developes into species.

Quite right.

But [evolution] doesn't answer the question we all want to know the answer to.

Who's "we all"?

Show me some good theory! Where is the science?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models" isn't a valid scientific reference, but this article appears to be well cited, and gives a good overview of some of the likely candidates (which are being investigated).

This is an answer to a question that cannot even be asked without the baggage of religion. It's taboo.

As evidenced by all the research cited in the wikipedia article, it's clearly not taboo. This is a lie promoted by the ID proponents. They're upset because their idea of ID didn't pan out. They couldn't find any supporting evidence, and no one will fund them. A child throwing a tantrum after being told "don't pull on the cat's tail", and complaining that the parents won't let him do anything.

Is there funded research that even explores the question? If there is I would like to know.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/72ulpx8362t840n7/" is one example. You can get the first page in the free preview, but the full text requires subscription.

But I suspect that there is not any serious science focused on this because of the "religious" association. It's a question that is not allowed. What the hell?

As I have just shown: You're wrong, there are plenty of scientists working on this. It's my favourite area of biology (even though I'm a physicist). For most scientists working in the field, there isn't much religious association to worry about (except the backlash from the uneducated public for finding an alternate explanation to "goddidit"). The people who bring the baggage to the table are those who have already decided on the answer based on their particular holy book.

 

[drankin]

Nor does it try to. Evolution only applies once there is reproduction with variation. That's sort of like claiming that neurology doesn't explain the formation of stars.

Quite right.

Who's "we all"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models" isn't a valid scientific reference, but this article appears to be well cited, and gives a good overview of some of the likely candidates (which are being investigated).

As evidenced by all the research cited in the wikipedia article, it's clearly not taboo. This is a lie promoted by the ID proponents. They're upset because their idea of ID didn't pan out. They couldn't find any supporting evidence, and no one will fund them. A child throwing a tantrum after being told "don't pull on the cat's tail", and complaining that the parents won't let him do anything.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/72ulpx8362t840n7/" is one example. You can get the first page in the free preview, but the full text requires subscription.

As I have just shown: You're wrong, there are plenty of scientists working on this. It's my favourite area of biology (even though I'm a physicist). For most scientists working in the field, there isn't much religious association to worry about (except the backlash from the uneducated public for finding an alternate explanation to "goddidit"). The people who bring the baggage to the table are those who have already decided on the answer based on their particular holy book.

Ok, Neo, I'm interested.

I don't understand much of what I read, but it sounds like there some research on the origin of life! I'm wrong! I've been snookered a bit by the movie. You seem to know something about the biology. Are there some conclusions that can be drawn from the research as of yet?

 

[arunma]

arunma: You seem to think that I'm a scientist ("When we, as scientists..."). That's not true; I'm simply a science enthusiast who trusts objective evidence over unfounded speculation. If I damaged the reputation of the scientists here, I apologize; the opinions I express here are my own, and should not be considered those of the scientific community.

I don't think you damaged the reputation of any scientists. There are quite a few scientists who practice a religious science-based atheism, who do most of the harm. Richard Dawkins is a prime example of how I think the issue of evolution should not be approached.

That said, I see that I have to clarify what I meant by "brainwashing" and "throwing the world into a dark age". Instilling a belief in a person using dishonesty by excluding evidence to the contrary IS brainwashing. It's not a pretty word, but it is very accurate in this case.

Let's get a reality check, here. Following is a definition of brainwashing that I found on dictionary.com:

1. a method for systematically changing attitudes or altering beliefs, originated in totalitarian countries, esp. through the use of torture, drugs, or psychological-stress techniques.
2. any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, esp. one based on repetition or confusion: brainwashing by TV commercials.

Obviously definition 1 doesn't fit. And definition 2 is quite a stretch. Creationist scientists are liars, but they aren't practicing controlled indoctrination. The people who come to their seminars, museums, etc. are all coming of their own free will and are not under any coersion. As the definition itself suggests, we can only call creationism brainwashing in the same sense that, say, TV political ads are brainwashing. Use the term if you insist, but I think it has the wrong connotation here.

As for the possibility of a dark age, the stats regarding Americans' scientific beliefs are worrying, to say the least, and they hardly bode well for the future. As a Canadian, I'm also deeply worried that a large percentage of high-school students here consider evolution and Big Bang to be silly beliefs, and not accurate models of the universe. That is hardly an encouraging sign.

No it isn't encouraging, but there are a lot of factors in play here, and creationism is only one of them. Other factors probably include bad teachers, science-weak curricula, and (I'll get in trouble for this one) a strong emphasis on high school athletics. If everything religious people learn about evolution comes from Richard Dawkins, of course they're going to think that it's part of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy. I share your concern about the future of American (and Canadian) science education. So let's do something about it and get more science taught in high schools.

Creationism certainly isn't helping things, but dark ages can come about without it. See your average African or Southeast Asian third world nation.

I'm surprised that you think my posts contained fear tactics. Portraying creationism as harmful is hardly a "fear tactic"; using that logic, saying that anything holds back progress would also be a "fear tactic". And "emotional appeals"? If my support of objectivity appeals to your emotions, that's great, but it was intended solely as a logical argument.

I apologize if I insinuated that your post was comprised of fear tactics or emotional appeals. I mentioned them only because I find that many proponents of evolution use these rhetorical devices even as they attack creationists who do the same thing.

An example please?

At the risk of getting involved in the religious debate I hoped to avoid...

An excellent example of this is The Bacchae, a comedy of Euripides from 405 BC about the Greek god Dionysus. If I remember correctly, back in undergrad I ownd a textbook which claimed the following,

1.) Dionysus' initial rejection by his own family parallels Jesus' rejection at Nazareth as recorded in the Gospels.
2.) Dionysus' revelation of himself resembles Jesus' resurrection from death.
3.) The havoc that Dionysus wreaks on the city of Thebes resembles the second coming of Christ as recorded in the book of Revelation.

The idea is that the Gospels are fantasies that were written with this play in mind. Fortunately I was also required to read the actual play. There are several problems here, many of which become apparent if you read the primary source. First, the theme of rejection by family is so widespread in literature that the claim of forgery on this basis is spurious. Heck, read your average Vietnam vet's biography and you'll probably find exactly the same theme. Secondly, Dionysus' revelation of himself occurs in the context of him breaking out of the king's prison; it's a very weak comparison to bodily resurrection. As for the third claim, I fail to see how a bunch of women going insane, committing strange sexual acts, and killing the king is anything like what's described in the book of Revelation.

This is an example of a comparison of Jesus to other gods which turns out to be very poor upon examination of the primary source. I imagine if I started reading myths about Horus I'd find the same thing. But do you see how this is similar to creationist deceptions? This theory has been purported so many times that people simply assume it to be true without examining the evidence for themselves.

They have shown various holdiays in christianity (christmas for example) to come from pagan festivals, in order to ease the implementation of a new religion by a new ruling power. Depending where you read in the bible christ was supposedly born on many dates, with different christian sects celebrating on different days. The 25th was simply chosen as it aligned with a holdiay the people already had (I'll look up an example now).

It's widely known that Christmas is a made-up holiday. It is also not one of the most ancient holidays of Christianity, but rather a later add-on. Demonstrating the non-Christian origin of Christmas does nothing to support the idea that the Bible is a forgery based on Greek or Egyptian myths. Perhaps you'll want to better define what you mean when you say that Christianity is based on older religions. Do you mean that modern Christianity has been syncretized with other religions? Or do you mean that the historical accounts of Jesus are in fact mythology based on older mythology?

Furthermore, I'm not sure why you said that "depending on where you read in the Bible Christ was supposedly born on many dates." The Bible gives no specific date at all. But for what it's worth, based on circumstancial evidence scholars have a pretty wide consensus of April as being close to the true date of his birth.

Here is a link to a Christian website, read the first few paragraphs and it explains exactly how christmas isn't a christian festival and was adopted from paganism:
http://www.loughbrickland.org/articles/mass-easter.shtml

You say people who make claims christianity is linked to other religions give "academically-poor" arguments, yet here is a site from the religion itself which disagrees with your claim. Why would the christians argue it as well? If these aspects are tuly christians as you imply by the above statement, it doesn't make sense for them to argue against thems does it? So I think you should re-think your claim of the arguments being academically poor.

See my earlier comments on why the issue of Christmas is a red herring. But might I suggest that we wrap this conversation up soon before the thread gets closed. We do have that pesky rule on religious debates to worry about.

 

[NeoDevin]

Ok, Neo, I'm interested.

I don't understand much of what I read, but it sounds like there some research on the origin of life! I'm wrong! I've been snookered a bit by the movie. You seem to know something about the biology. Are there some conclusions that can be drawn from the research as of yet?

As I mentioned in my previous post, I'm a physicist, not a biologist or a chemist (though I'm going into medical physics, so I'll probably learn a lot of both over the next year). There are no definitive answers on exactly which chemical process lead to life, but there are a number of plausible candidates.

The basic idea is this: Prebiotic Earth had oceans that were basically a soup of organic molecules. Through some (as of yet) undetermined process a chemical, which could self replicate in these conditions was formed. Perhaps by single fortunate spark/lightning strike... this is where Stein gets his "lightning striking a mud puddle" idea, perhaps as a product of a thermal vent. It could have happened anywhere that the energy available is significantly higher than the "background" energy of the ocean. Note that by "self replicating" here what I actually mean is that it's a chemical which catalyses it's own formation from the available chemicals, either directly or indirectly (say chemical A causes the formation of chemical B, which in turn causes the formation of more A). There are candidates of both types which are plausible in what scientists believe the prebiotic environment was like. Remember that it would (theoretically) only take one single self-replicating molecule to evolve into life. So despite how unlikely it is (it may not even be very unlikely given the right conditions), given sufficient time, it was bound to happen.

You can check out the http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html" on the subject, which is written more to a lay-audience.

I'm heading to bed now, I'll try to answer any more questions you have on the subject tomorrow.

PS. I wasn't lying about what he http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHUmiwoO2uQ".

 

[vivesdn]

So despite how unlikely it is (it may not even be very unlikely given the right conditions), given sufficient time, it was bound to happen.

This is the key idea both for origin of life and for evolution.
As self-replication when we adddress organisms is not perfect, those 'copies' that replicate more or maintain replication on difficult conditions will increase in number over those that replicate less. When you understand that life works in this way (self-replication), evolution is just a consequence.

Given enough time, all ecologic space is to be filled.
The exact species is a matter of probability and opportunity.
What Darwin did not know is that there are by far more and powerful mechanisms than his punctual mutations (which of course play also a role).

 

[D H]

I don't understand much of what I read, but it sounds like there some research on the origin of life! I'm wrong! I've been snookered a bit by the movie.

Yep, you were snookered. The movie is pushing a "god of the gaps" argument, which is just a variant of the argument from ignorance logical fallacy. The problem with any god of the gaps argument is that science keeps filling in the gaps. Science has been working on filling in the gap between non-life and life for quite some time.

Some on-line references on the subject:

1. Astrobiology Magazine. http://www.astrobio.net/ An amazing site. The origin of life is one of their hot topics. An index of articles on the origin of life: http://www.astrobio.net/index.php?option=com_hottopic&id=25.

2. NASA's Astrobiology Program. http://astrobiology.nasa.gov. NASA is funding a lot of the work in this field. This is the website that covers that work.

3. AstroBiology.com. http://www.astrobiology.com/. Not nearly as good as the above two, but that is because Astrobiology Magazine is phenomenal and because the NASA site is paid for with your tax dollars.

4. Astrobiology Journal. http://www.liebertonline.com/ast. Peer-reviewed journal on the subject. Subscription required.

5. Panda's Thumb. http://pandasthumb.org A "voice for the defenders of the integrity of science". This site covers the movie Expelled extensively at http://pandasthumb.org/archives/expelled/ .


In print:

A fairly recent (2006) lay overview of the subject is the book "Gen·e·sis: The Scientific Quest for Life’s Origin" by Robert M. Hazen.

 

[JaredJames]

arunma, at what point did I specify what part of christianity is made of other religions?

let me answer that for you, I didn't.

I simply stated "We already know religions like christianity are based heavily on older religions, so how do we know what truth, if any, there is to a book such as the bible?".

As in, given the lack of evidence for pretty much everything in the bible and the fact we know they took aspects of other religions, how can we be sure there is any truth at all in the bible. You then said that all claims such as this gave "academically-poor at best" arguments. Blanketing my statement as incorrect. I did not say all claims were true, just that there are 'aspects' which are taken from various other religions. I suggest we leave this rest, I will not descend into an argument of religion with anybody. If you want to believe in the great pixie in the sky than that's up to you, don't try and convince me it must exist because of some book with a serious lack of evidence. If you want proof of why the bible (or any religious text should be ignored), write a book on a scientific hypothesis which contradicts itself in places, has no evidence what-so-ever to back it up and 'borrows' from other just as far fetched hypothesis' (again with contradiction and no evidence). Submit it for review and see how long it takes for you to become the laughing stock by all but just a few. If you want to know how easily people can be swayed into believing something google 'scientology'. Don't come at me with an argument that something exists/must be true if you cannot provide one shred of evidence to back up these claims. No Evidence, No Belief - Scientific or Otherwise.

Right back to the OP. This thread is on evolution not origins of life, as I pointed out earlier. Evolution is a proven theory with strong evidence to back it up, over the billions of years there has been life here. So firstly, Earth as 6000 years old is out the window.
Just because there is no scientific evidence to prove the current hypothesis' for the origins of ilfe, doesn't mean there never will be. Religion says to give up and just accept god did it. Now, this lack of evidence is not proof there is an all powerful gor or creator. In my opinion, I find it far more likely that life comes down to random chance billions of years ago than some intelligent designer (brining the question of who creates the creator?). The reason religion doesn't come into the exploration of the beginning of life is because it has NO evidence and therefore NO standing with it. When your house burns down, and the fire department look for the cause, they don't spend hours looking to see if 'god did it' to spite you do they? Because it just isn't pausible. Yes, science doesn't discount a creator, but it also can find no proof for it. I would rather wait until they can come up with a concrete answer to the question of 'how did life begin?' whether it's some random chance OR an intelligent creator, but I want the facts. To simply assume the latter now with no proof is plain foolish in my opinion. If we take the religious stance, we should just stop all research and accept that 'god did it' and spend all our time worshipping it. You cannot argue a god exists just because we can't explain something yet.

(And for the record, just because current origin of life hypothesis' may not work or haven't been studied enough, doesn't mean they all won't and we won't eventually come up with an answer, Rome wasn't built in a day). And yes, we ARE currently studying to find the orgins of life and the universe (uh I don't know, little place called CERN springs to mind).

 

[Hurkyl]

So despite how unlikely it is (it may not even be very unlikely given the right conditions), given sufficient time, it was bound to happen.

Given enough time, all ecologic space is to be filled.

The two of you are essentially making an \infty \cdot 0 error -- putting "incredibly unlikely event" together with "incredible amount of time to happen" gives you "no information". We need more information before we can seriously make claims like "given enough time, abiogenesis is bound to occur on Earth/some planet".

Even if you assume a universe that exists for an infinite amount of time, you still have no guarantee that abiogenesis is a probability 1 event: in a universe dying a heat death, the odds of abiogenesis will be sharply decreasing over time, which could (depending on the actual numbers) lead to abiogenesis having probability less than 1.

 

[Hurkyl]

If we take the religious stance, we should just stop all research and accept that 'god did it' and spend all our time worshipping it.

This really is a false dichotomy. Believing that 'God did it' does not preclude one from studying the way in which it was done, or the mechanisms God used to do it. A religion requires one to accept the tenets of its faith, but most do not forbid the use of science to flesh out the details. (e.g. to shed light on the question "is Genesis allegorical or literal?" in Christianity)

 

[JaredJames]

This really is a false dichotomy. Believing that 'God did it' does not preclude one from studying the way in which it was done, or the mechanisms God used to do it. A religion requires one to accept the tenets of its faith, but most do not forbid the use of science to flesh out the details. (e.g. to shed light on the question "is Genesis allegorical or literal?" in Christianity)

Does it not? Really? People being persecuted for their beliefs in science years ago and today. Go to the really religious places in America and try to get them to accept the FACTS of evolution (Richard Dawkins went to one and met the head of the church there, he mentioned evolution and the guy erupted in anger saying things like 'are you calling us animals?'. I'll let you make your mind up on that one). Yes there are scientists who try to understand why things are and are religious, fair enough, but I don't see the catholic church spending their money on research into life and its beginnings. They just accept god did it. And they expect everyone to believe what they are told as fact and then donate money and property to them for telling them what can only be described as stories and tell them to not use things like condoms. There is no sense in telling people things like this, supporting it with statements like it helps spread HIV and Aids. And on top of that, do they realize the world is becoming ever more overpopulated and telling people to keep going is ridiculous? Anyway I digress. The moment you say "we don't know the answer and therefore god must have done it" you are effectively giving up. That is what religions do, they expect you to take on blind faith what they say is the word of god.
Anyone seen this before? It's my background:
http://www.dbskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/the-scientific-method.jpg

 

[WaveJumper]

Science doesn't say if there is God or not. Only atheists and theists 'know' if there is God or not.

Why do people always seem to be attracted to extremes?

 

[WaveJumper]

The movie is pushing a "god of the gaps" argument, which is just a variant of the argument from ignorance logical fallacy. The problem with any god of the gaps argument is that science keeps filling in the gaps. Science has been working on filling in the gap between non-life and life for quite some time.

You aren't aware of your own ignorance. You think science has explained more than 1% of what we want to know?

Or do you assume science has already explained most of what is fundamentally important?

Even if, in 30 000 years science explains everything, how does that preclude a creator of the universe?

Existence requires an explanation. Within the atheist sect it might be totally unimportant, but there is a portion of the people who don't take everything at face value. We want to reach deeper than the blatantly obvious. We want to know everything, not just a narrow-minded outlook on reality that fails to explain a ton of very weird occurrences. Even if there is no God, We want to know what the system is that everything adheres to in this universe that makes possible its existence and the sustainability of life for billions of years. We don't see God in some gaps of knowledge, we see a possibility of some type of God/intelligence behind everything, including the sentences you are typing. We cannot rule that out, no one can, except the forever ignorant. We sometimes(including me) assume there is no god, but at the end of the day, it's still an assumption.

Evolution is pretty much a solid fact, the Earth is not 6000 years old but we cannot exclude the possibility of god being a team of scientists experimenting with Big Bangs from some other medium, or god being a software designer, or some other totally unknown and inconceivable phenomenon.

 

[JaredJames]

You aren't aware of your own ignorance. You think science has explained more than 1% of what we want to know?

Or do you assume science has already explained most of what is fundamentally important?

Even if, after 30 000 years science explains everything, how does that preclude a creator of the universe?

Existence requires an explanation. Within the atheist sect it might be totally unimportant, but there is a portion of the people who don't take everything at face value. We want to reach deeper than the blatantly obvious. We want to know everything, not just a narrow-minded outlook on reality that fails to explain a ton of weird occurences.

Firstly, I make no claim about what science has and hasn't explained, I simply point out that science provides evidence for its claims whereas religion does not. To say there ust be a creator without any proof is just ridiculous, and so is saying there isn't one. I just see no evidence that there is one. And no one has provided me any. So therefore I can't justify a belief in a creator. And who creates the creator? If everything is by random chance then at least you don't nd up with this infinite paradox.

Secondly, science has the fundamentals down pretty well, however if science explains everything, you would then know if there was a creator or not. A contradictory statement if I've ever seen one, it would not preclude anything, if there is evidence for let's say the creation of the universe and the origins of life, ther is then no requirement for a creator.

Thridly, why is it unimportant to the atheist? Why is an atheist narrow minded? To simply view religion is to be narrow minded, to simply view science is narrow minded, but given there is NO EVIDENCE for any religious claims, to disregard it is perfectly reasonable. In all the years that religion has been going, no one has provided any reliable evidence for its claims.

 

[WaveJumper]

Secondly, science has the fundamentals down pretty well, however if science explains everything, you would then know if there was a creator or not.

This is a good forum to learn that science cannot explain everything. Ask any scientist, any physicist on here. Science isn't all powerful, science isn't religion(although atheists tend to turn science into a religious shelter). We cannot explain everything, not ever. It's a religious belief, an utopia.

Thridly, why is it unimportant to the atheist? Why is an atheist narrow minded?

If you say - "I don't believe in God/I don't think there is a God", that'd be a fair statement. If you say "Those who believe in some intelligence behind the existence of reality are crazy/stupid" you become narrow-minded. You dismiss this opportunity by making a largely unfounded assumption that there cannot be(or shouldn't be) a certain type of creator.

 

[WaveJumper]

And who creates the creator? If everything is by random chance then at least you don't nd up with this infinite paradox.

But you still end up with a paradox of a different kind. Reality and existence are paradoxical, without a creator the existence of reality is even more paradoxical. It's just that atheism is blinding and comforting at the same time, preventing you from seeing the inherent paradox in all scenarios.

 

[JaredJames]

This is a good forum to learn that science cannot explain everything. Ask any scientist, any physicist on here. Science isn't all powerful, science isn't religion(although atheists tend to turn science into a religious shelter). We cannot explain everything, not ever. It's a religious belief, an utopia.

I never said science could explain everything, you said "if science was to explain everything". I simply responded to that 'if' scenario. As unlikely as it is, how do you know science can't explain everything? Perhaps one day we will be able to explain everything (unlikely, but no less likely than there being a god). If there is a creator, what would stop us learning enough to become on parr? To know 'everything' if you like. If one 'being' can do it, why can't we. You see, this type of argument is continuous and open so many hypothetical scenarios, none more plausible than the other. Claim all you like about religion but claims are NOT evidence.

If you say - "I don't believe in God", that'd be a fair statement. If you say "Those who believe in some intelligence behind the existence of reality are crazy/stupid" you become narrow-minded. You dismiss this opportunity by making a largely unfounded assumption that there cannot be(or shouldn't be) a certain type of creator.

I agree, I never said that. I suppose as much of an atheist I consider myself, if something really amazing happened (a miracle basically) I may change my mind (possibly agnostic), but it would take something mindblowing.

My problem is that religous people attack science with the argument that science can't accept that there was nothing before, it can't accept infinity. Yet they then claim there is a creator, now no one has answered the question, what creates the creator? Your paradoxical argument doesn't stand for me. Random chance does not lead to an endless chain of creators. There is evidence for science, there is no evidence for religious beliefs. If you want to believe in the great pixie in the sky go for it, but don't try and argue science unless you have facts to back it up.